is there such thing as to much swing

This is a forum to discuss pole vault technique as it relates to intermediate level pole vaulting.
Billymc1997
PV Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:30 am
Expertise: High school vaulter
Lifetime Best: 9ft
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Bubka

is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby Billymc1997 » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:27 pm

when "rowing the boat" is it possible to row to hard?

CoachEric
PV Whiz
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:47 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current Private Coach for HS and College Athletes
Lifetime Best: 16'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Bubka
Contact:

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby CoachEric » Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:56 pm

You shouldn't be rowing at all.

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby KirkB » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:32 pm

Billy, you may be confusing "rowing" with "swinging".

In a nutshell, swinging is the natural motion of the entire body swinging past the chord of the pole. For reference, think of the natural swinging motion a highbar, like when a gymnast does giants. Personally, in PV I think this motion should be led by the action of the trail leg, however there are others that believe that it's a "fully body" motion (as on th highbar), and I agree with that too.

On the contrary, rowing is where you purposely cause your body to swing by leading with the actions of your arms, in an action similar to rowing a canoe. A gymnast would never swing this way on a highbar. In PV, this is considered bad technique (as CoachEris says) because it ignores the natural swinging action that you would have if you led the swing by your trail leg or by your full body. When you row, you tend to just let the trail leg drag behind passively. Anything unnatural is passive.

There's been quite a bit of discussion on this topic in the past several years. Search for the topic "rowing", and you'll find more thorough explanations of the issues and solutions. You might also want to research the definitions of "active" and "passive", which will help your understanding of why active is good and passive is bad.

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

vquestpvc
PV Whiz
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:46 am
Expertise: 30 years
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: Stacy Dragilia

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby vquestpvc » Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:48 am

Billy, your concern is a little confusing? "Is there such a thing as too much swing" and the "can you row too hard". The two are completely different and need to be addressed separately as each applies to the sequence of pole vaulting. Regarding too much swing, I've heard it best described by Jan Johnson as it is "a race to the top". This is meant to suggest that one must get to a "cover" position over the pole before it recoils as to get the best effects of the pole in conjunction with the vaulters body position. As far as "rowing too hard" it probably would be too difficult to accomplish. And yes, I'm suggesting there is a rowing action in the vault. Once a vaulter is in the "cover" position above a bent pole, the arms are in a position similar to rowing a canoe. At that very cover point one must thrust the hips into the pole while "rowing the canoe. So many young vaulters I seen are impressed by their ability to do "Bubka's" on a horizontal bar, but have no idea as to how that action transfers to the vault. I would certainly agree with KirkB that the action of vaulting has to be "active" meaning there has to be continual movement throughout the vault. I would, however, disagree that "anything unnatural is passive" because it is more natural to be passive while vaulting than to actively move through the vault. Being active through the vault requires understanding the progressive movements needed and connecting the movements through as many reps as possible with feedback from either a relatively competent coach and/or video.

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:47 pm

vquestpvc wrote: I would, however, disagree that "anything unnatural is passive" because it is more natural to be passive while vaulting than to actively move through the vault. Being active through the vault requires understanding the progressive movements needed and connecting the movements through as many reps as possible with feedback from either a relatively competent coach and/or video.

Yes, I would agree with that. My statement was rather extreme, to make a point. Point being, the natural swing of a vaulter should emulate the natural swing of a gymnast on a highbar, and if you're doing anything that's unnatural (such as rowing), you should scrutinize it and see why it might be suboptimal. The NATURAL way to swing is more optimal, and (as vquestpvc infers), in each moment in time during the swing, there's added "impetus". If you're just hanging on the pole, that's passive. But if you're actively SWINGING on the pole, that's active.

Being active is almost always better than being passive. That's what I meant to say.

I think I'm in full agreement with vquestpvc, I just didn't explain myself as well as he did.

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby willrieffer » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:32 pm

When a gymnast swings on a high bar they never have to close the angle of the shoulder to the torso, something vaulters do have to do to get their hips over their hands with the proximity of the pole. The question remains if this necessitates "rowing", a problem I confronted as a college vaulter...and without much help or an answer from anyone I was working with at the time.

Some very good vaulters have had a technique that seems the work the pole forward after take off, which puts their CG (center of gravity) back and lower. We might argue about the ultimate efficiency of this in terms of plant and post take off, but perhaps at another time. In other words, you almost have to exert force through the shoulders to keep your CG back and down as long as possible. This however is NOT rowing as I see it. Most here I think think of rowing as something that puts the vaulter into a progressed swing in front of their maximum CG placement in relation to the pole. Right? Early "Rowing" puts the torso forward at too much of an angle, into a progressed swing, and then swing stall. It fails to maximize CG placement, the pole action is shortened, swing is killed, etc.

Now here's the problem. New vaulters will want to "pull" up on the pole, some early, some late. So as a coach I have to make a decision. Discuss shoulder "rowing", being mindful of the action of the top shoulder and closing the angle, and NOT pulling anywhere through the vault perhaps warrants the use of "rowing". Yet this is problematic in its own right. There is really a mutliphase action in regard to the shoulder motion in advanced vaulters, almost an on/off/on action in regards to the radial force and angles involved. This pressure can at once both keep the hips back and therefore create a better CG placement, or if applied wrongly, constantly, or aggressively throw the hips forward and up too fast.

So, is there "too much swing"? Well, its almost the wrong question. The real question is of the relation of the CG moment for the actual vaulter to the ideal. IF the vaulters CG is either forward or behind the ideal, the energy return will be less. Most often a progressed swing, which "rowing" can contribute to, or which most often comes from taking off under, will cause the pole to start recoil early, lose forward momentum, and kill swing, and is the most common culprit of a bad vault. The "late" swing moment is jumping on the pole, where the hips are too far back and the torso angled forward, which is also a momentum killer. IN a VERY complex way the shoulders have to help orient the torso and hips to approach ideal CG placement. At some point even with the best of take offs you have to work with the arms and shoulders to keep the swing from getting progressed...

Hope that helps...

You know, its very complicated. A moving man effecting a double pendulum action on a bending pole...

Ride that thing like a wheel!

User avatar
altius
PV Rock Star
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:27 am
Location: adelaide, australia
Contact:

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby altius » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:06 pm

If you row too hard you will probably go over the rapids! But if you want to learn to invert fast, practice swinging in the correct body position on a high bar, transfer that exact same movement to the pole - but also really emphasise driving the hands up through the pole at take off - and for as long as you can make your body do it. However it is important ant to remember that the swing does not happen in isolation - it is also a function of your run, plant and take off. There is no time to think after you leave the ground on the pole - other advice is redundant. Its all on the BTB dvd. Keep the whole process simple in your mind - and as I indicate, develop the basic pattern away from the pole while improving the other elements of technique. . That is of course IMHO.
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. John Wooden

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby willrieffer » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:56 pm

Just a few more things that came to mind.

When you give a kid a short and have them do the motion in relation to the body, what would you call it besides "rowing"?

Sometimes the more detailed explanation is the most useless one. You could give a kid a PhD dissertation on the physics of the vault but that probably won't help as much as, "Hey, you have to SWING under there."

Advanced and even most vaulters have a sense of where they are in relation to ideal placement, and adjust in some way. Sometimes that's flat out killing the swing and bailing. I would contend that in advanced vaulters that there are continuous changes made with the shoulders, forces, pressures, and angles, made during a vault, and not all of them are conscious. It may be first and foremost a "swing", but its a complicated and constantly changing one. As above active over passive. IF you could just swing under the top hand with a bending pole everyone could go back to the old slide the two hands together thing. But no one is going to do that because a vaulter cannot control a bending pole that way. They cannot make the subtle body position adjustments for a successful vault.

A part of this comes from the physics of the vault as well. It's a double pendulum that runs in two phases. In the first the pole compresses and shortens the radius of the pole pendulum speeding up its rotation, while the vaulter wants to elongate their pendulum moment under the hands and slow if not outright stall their rotation as much as possible. This is because perpendicular gives the lowest CG and the more perpendicular a vaulter can get and keep their torso and hips to the top hand the better. Or, not have an overprogressed swing. Then as the pole begins to rebound and get longer and slow, the vaulter now has to speed to position above it as fast as possible and they shorten their pendulum radius to do so. In that in the physics you need to both slow and then speed the swing merits that upper body strength and effort is an asset. This would seem to beg that the longer a vaulter can hold near the ideal CG, and keep the swing unprogressed, them more they are going to have to work to get into top position. This is the same way that the double leg provides a drop to the CG and an advantage illuminated by physics, and yet makes the end swing progression that much more difficult.

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: is there such thing as too much swing

Unread postby KirkB » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:44 pm

willrieffer wrote: ... the longer a vaulter can hold near the ideal CG, and keep the swing unprogressed, the more they are going to have to work to get into top position.

This is true, but this is also an oxymoron. The words "hold" and "ideal" and "keep" are critical here. There should be no "holding back" or intentionally steering your body to the ideal position of your CG. You should not hold or keep your body from doing anything but a "natural" swing. It's this natural swing that I think you're referring to, Will, when you refer to the body position (in relation to the timing of the pendulums) of the "ideal CG".

Any vaulter attempting to do so is almost guaranteed of defying the ideal swinging action that he's striving for! Rather, the vaulter is better off following his natural swing - the swing that is best discovered on the highbar. The reason it's better to learn on the highbar is that there's too many moving parts on the pole - the run, the pole carry, the plant, the takeoff, the stretch, and then the double-pendulum swing, with all subsequent actions depending on the success of previous actions. On the highbar, it's just a single-pendulum swing.

And as Altius says, you don't have time to think about your swing as you're doing it - you need to train your muscles (develop your muscle memory) to subconsciously swing in a certain way (the so-called natural way - without cognizant steering).

willrieffer wrote: This is the same way that the double leg provides a drop to the CG and an advantage illuminated by physics, and yet makes the end swing progression that much more difficult.

Agreed. But priority-wise, it's much more important to ensure that you get a full swing and full inversion than to worry about "optimizing" your vault by staying lower longer. If you purposely stay low (at the expense of fully inverting by the time the pole propels you upwards), then you will have to play catch-up to manipulate your body in an unnatural way (aka tuck/shoot) to full inversion. Whereas if you just swing naturally, there are no pauses or inefficient "unnatural actions" in the flow of your swing to inversion.

So my recommendation is to first of all (assuming all previous actions are OK) make sure that you're getting a full inversion, and then - and ONLY then - worry about staying low in the first half of the swing. All the way from Wolfgang Nordwig in the early 1970s to Renaud Lavillenie today, there's very few vaulters that have the strength and skill to hang low and still "beat" the pole. So until you get their strength and skill, don't even try - just stick to your natural swing.

Until you get to within a couple feet (say 5.50m) of the WR, there's so many ways to increase your PR - having a low CG during your swing isn't one of them. This is just IMHO, of course, and possibly biased since I didn't personally have the core strength and skill to drop my lead knee and then catch up to the pole again; and my observations of most "mere mortal" vaulters is that they don't have this core strength and skill either.

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: is there such thing as to much swing

Unread postby willrieffer » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:48 pm

Well, I've about figured out that I'm really going to get into it with the Petrov crowd...

First...

I learned to vault with Rick Attig while he was still at Raytown South at camp. I was a MO HS vaulter with a meet PR in HS of 15'. At Attig's camp I went through 13 poles in one day, flew over 15' 6" by a foot before turning my ankle. Rick once told someone that I was the most powerful vaulter he'd ever seen. I then went to Ohio State where I vaulted until injury and also....studied advanced physics, physics engineering specifically. I also while there was THE slowest guy on the team. I ran a 5.0 40 and was slower than every guy on the team including all the throwers lol!

Second, the Petrov model is full of hyperbole, half truths, and myths, in part because they got results! First of all is that Bubka may have preached the "free take off" but he did not practice it, at least as far as its described, in that if you simply look at the vids in vault after vault his pole starts bending about as soon as his take off foot hits the ground. I contend from a physics standpoint this is actually preferable as it allows the vaulter to add mechanical/muscle energy to the vault/pole in addition to their take off kinetic energy. Further, Bubka also was a master manipulator of his position and CG along with his rotational axis as the Petrov model claims although the specific claims are off base in terms of physics. Specifically he was a master at manipulating his rotation speed particularly in the mid vault by altering his body. Watch and he in fact uses his legs by shortening them and speeding his rotation while also using the shoulders. No he did not "tuck" but for almost all vaulters using, working on, or thinking about "the tuck" and its placement, it is so far out of the critical swing zone, that is late, that its just a vestigial motion worth no value. Or, they've already missed the time when they needed to speed their rotation, which Bubka did not.

One of the most important things that Bubka did that many other great vaulters do is that about as soon as they are off the ground and in the C the work to end that position. They retard the hip motion forward, the swing, by use of the arms which is evident in the space created between the vaulter and the pole and the top arm placement to the torso/head, and work to orient the torso as much to the perpendicular as possible. Bubka in fact used the left arm extension to help achieve this, as it is necessary, for if not the swing is progressed. Bubka works very hard to get this position and keep it as long as possible. In slomo you can see how long he actually holds a very still position with the arms and torso while the left leg swings. Also, that almost all of his rotation moment as evidenced by the hips has been transferred to energy/speed in the pole(in physics by action/reaction) or carried in the lower take off leg (knee extension) and then take off leg swing around the hip. It is then when he begins to shorten the swing leg, use the right leg and hips, abdominal, and shoulders that he makes the critical transfer of energy from the horizontal and stored to the vertical by swing speed positioning, and I dare say, muscle.

User avatar
KirkB
PV Rock Star
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:05 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter; Former Elite Vaulter; Former Coach; Fan
Lifetime Best: 5.34
Favorite Vaulter: Thiago da Silva
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: is there such thing as too much swing

Unread postby KirkB » Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:23 am

willrieffer wrote: Well, I've about figured out that I'm really going to get into it with the Petrov crowd...

I wouldn't say I'm pure Petrov, but I'm certainly in that camp. What I will say though, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it's perfectly acceptable that two people can see the same vault and have two completely different interpretations of it. I'm not going to argue this point, I'm just accepting it.

willrieffer wrote: ... Bubka may have preached the "free take off" but he did not practice it, at least as far as its described, in that if you simply look at the vids in vault after vault his pole starts bending about as soon as his take off foot hits the ground. I contend from a physics standpoint this is actually preferable as it allows the vaulter to add mechanical/muscle energy to the vault/pole in addition to their take off kinetic energy.

I accept that Bubka often took off under, but I don't think that was his intent. Can you explain how an under takeoff adds energy to the vaulter-pole system? I just don't see it. And I see that you've replied to PVStudent's dissertation on pages 3-5 of this thread: http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27151&hilit=pvstudent&start=24, so you know that he doesn't see it either. I'll let you two duke this out. :)

willrieffer wrote: Further, Bubka also was a master manipulator of his position and CG along with his rotational axis as the Petrov model claims although the specific claims are off base in terms of physics.

What you call manipulating his CG, I call a natural swing. Vive la difference! :)

willrieffer wrote: They retard the hip motion forward, the swing, by use of the arms which is evident in the space created between the vaulter and the pole and the top arm placement to the torso/head, and work to orient the torso as much to the perpendicular as possible. Bubka in fact used the left arm extension to help achieve this, as it is necessary, for if not the swing is progressed. Bubka works very hard to get this position and keep it as long as possible. In slomo you can see how long he actually holds a very still position with the arms and torso while the left leg swings.

This is the classic "Did he push with the bottom arm or not?" paradox. My assertion is that he did not push, and that his posture on the pole (including the space between the pole and his bottom hand) is generated solely on the basis of the pole bending under the pressure exerted on the top hand (pressure which came from the inertia of his speed at takeoff). I realize that you see this differently, and my intent is not to try to win you over in an argument. Rather, I only wish to point out that this is once again a difference of interpretation. It's difficult to prove one way or the other unless you actually interview Bubka. Vive la difference! :)

Kirk
Run. Plant. Jump. Stretch. Whip. Extend. Fly. Clear. There is no tuck! THERE IS NO DELAY!

willrieffer
PV Whiz
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:00 pm
Expertise: Former College Vaulter, Current High School Coach
Lifetime Best: 15'
World Record Holder?: Renaud Lavillenie
Favorite Vaulter: All of them...

Re: is there such thing as too much swing

Unread postby willrieffer » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:34 am

willrieffer wrote: ... Bubka may have preached the "free take off" but he did not practice it, at least as far as its described, in that if you simply look at the vids in vault after vault his pole starts bending about as soon as his take off foot hits the ground. I contend from a physics standpoint this is actually preferable as it allows the vaulter to add mechanical/muscle energy to the vault/pole in addition to their take off kinetic energy.

Kirk wrote:I accept that Bubka often took off under, but I don't think that was his intent. Can you explain how an under takeoff adds energy to the vaulter-pole system? I just don't see it. And I see that you've replied to PVStudent's dissertation on pages 3-5 of this thread: http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27151&hilit=pvstudent&start=24, so you know that he doesn't see it either. I'll let you two duke this out. :)


I want to change my reply and outlook here just a bit. Lets take this famous video, the 93 Championships, where you have 4 guys, Bubka, Tradenkov, Tarasov, and Yegerov all coming out of the old Soviet system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUPBl4xToUM
1st up Tarasov. Foot clearly on ground as pole is bending. He missed it. Good Vault.
2nd Trandenkov. Kinda hard to tell on this vid, but I believe he also has foot on ground and pole bend. So I think he missed as well. We should pay attention to him as he's one of the slowest over 6m. He also deviates from Bubka and the Petrov model in the use of his legs, which can be seen bending in the late mid vault. He almost "tucks"! And another good vault.
3rd Bubka. Hard to tell. Possibly missed it.
4th Yegerov. Hard to tell. Possibly missed it.
5th. Bubka. His winning vault. Well again from this video and angle its hard to tell. But then the next bit is the same vault from overhead and its very evident that his foot is on the ground and the pole is bending. He missed it. Another great sky ride!

So they have Petrov technique and coaching, and a goal, as you mention intent. But its evident that they cannot achieve consistently what they are trying to do, that is be airborn and avoid pole bend. Bubka admits to this same thing! He more or less says, 'well, this is what we are trying to do, but we don't get it very much'*. And the results are less than devastating. By certain elements of the presentation of the Petrov model you would think this would be devastating. It is visibly not. IF its not and they pull off terrific vaults with foot on the ground and visible pole bend, what are we to think? Perhaps possibly the technique is valuable in some way outside of the explanation? Aside from the free take of the Petrov model strives for a certain body position and high take off angle, which is where I think it derives results.

And I'll give you one where Bubka gets it. His first 6m clearance. Gads what a wacky vault! Look and you'll see reverse pole bend going on when he takes off! Flippin amazing! That that is such an odd take off and he pulls it out, well, that's speed plus athletic ability that can drive a path under the pole!

willrieffer wrote: They retard the hip motion forward, the swing, by use of the arms which is evident in the space created between the vaulter and the pole and the top arm placement to the torso/head, and work to orient the torso as much to the perpendicular as possible. Bubka in fact used the left arm extension to help achieve this, as it is necessary, for if not the swing is progressed. Bubka works very hard to get this position and keep it as long as possible. In slomo you can see how long he actually holds a very still position with the arms and torso while the left leg swings.


Kirk wrote:This is the classic "Did he push with the bottom arm or not?" paradox. My assertion is that he did not push, and that his posture on the pole (including the space between the pole and his bottom hand) is generated solely on the basis of the pole bending under the pressure exerted on the top hand (pressure which came from the inertia of his speed at takeoff). I realize that you see this differently, and my intent is not to try to win you over in an argument. Rather, I only wish to point out that this is once again a difference of interpretation. It's difficult to prove one way or the other unless you actually interview Bubka. Vive la difference! :)

Kirk


We might quibble about how things are accomplished, but you can watch him, and many great vaulters and they get their top arm back beside their head, and get their torso aligned and down. There is of course action with the swing in this, the body motion coming out of the C, but I'm pretty convinced they are active in the shoulders to reach and hold this position as well. It isn't necessary that the left arm push out and up and is as much an almost radial movement along the pole with both hands. Rowing? I did not say rowing! Rowing might well progress the swing and kill the vault. It's just a very active swinging.

Make no mistake. Swing positioning is essential and to me paramount. PVStudent explains well the mechanical advantage that the pole gives and the vaulters path through it make. I contend the nature of that path, and maximizing it is the overriding factor in the vault.

Oh, you wacky French with your quasi double leg swing and slow guys vaulting oh so high!


*
Bubka wrote:A. In pole vaulting the crucial factor is how to transfer energy to the pole, through the complete body of the vaulter; the arms, shoulders, hip, back and legs. But, if the pole begins to bend while the vaulter is yet on the ground, it is impossible to transfer the energy, all the energy is lost and goes to the box. The point is how to achieve this? The free take off is a very short period of time, we can say no more than hundreds of a second, going from the end of the take off and the moment in which the tip of the pole reaches the end of the box(ie a Pre-Jump Take-Off). But this very short time makes a big difference that allows the competitor to greatly improve the results. When we begin to bend the pole, while being on the ground, we can see an arched position of the body, on the other hand, if we perform a free take off we can feel the pushing action of the whole body, and we can transfer the speed of the run up and take off.
Additionally, we can increase the angle between the pole and the ground in the moment of taking off. This angle is a very important technical factor, because the bigger this angle the better the result.
But this angle must be achieved with a complete extension of the body, and mainly, keeping that short difference between the full extension of the body and the tip of the pole reaching the end of the box.It is a crucial factor, but at the same time, it is not easy to achieve. During my career, I was able to do it sometimes.


Crucial, but you only got it sometimes? How can something in this event be both crucial and inconsistently achieved?

P.S. To answer another question...
Bubka talks about "putting energy into the box". Well, you can't put energy into the box, it is simply a static counter that provides a force needed to put energy into the pole! IF it has any energy relationship to the vault, it is in bleeding off small amounts of it through rotational friction and heat. I know PVStudent goes through all this, but what for, I don't know. The box is static. It has no way to accept any energy. It does not move, has no mechanical way to deal with energy, and doesn't get burning hot when someone vaults. Whatever the load force, all the energy of the vaulter goes into the vault either in continuing kinetic energy or by converting kinetic energy into stored energy in the elasticity of the pole. However you take off you have this going on. Okay, so the vaulter enters the vault with a take off velocity where Kinetic Energy = 1/2 m (v squared) where with v being squared small amounts of increased velocity yield big end results (Oh physics, do not look at Bubka's speed!). If they free take off that's it, all the energy for the vault is in their flying forward kinetic energy. However, the body can add mechanical energy through use of the foot against the static runway. IF they maintain velocity through this they get more energy in the pole. Or, think about it this way. You can put a vaulter on the runway and through the use of their foot on the ground and muscles can bend the pole and put energy in it. Now think again. If you somehow would hang this vaulter off the runway, they cannot perform the same action. Thus foot on the ground creating force added to velocity can add to pole energy. PVStudent never addresses this potential for added mechanical energy, among other things. Is there a cost? Possibly, but its in whether the energy can be controlled and directed through the vault. Some vaulters pull this off very well. Like Bubka perhaps, foot driving and the ground, pole bending, and then going about 6.2 or more in the air...


Return to “Pole Vault - Intermediate Technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests